4.3 Article

WHO and ATPIII proposals for the definition of the metabolic syndrome in patients with Type 2 diabetes

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 383-387

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2004.01115.x

关键词

cholesterol; hypertension; microalbuminuria; obesity; waist circumference

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Different criteria have been proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and by the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (ATPIII) for the diagnosis of the metabolic syndrome. Its identification is of particular importance for coronary risk assessment. Methods The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was determined according to the two different proposals in 1569 consecutive subjects with Type 2 diabetes. Results By the WHO proposal, 81% of cases (95% confidence interval, 79-83) were labelled as metabolic syndrome. Microalbuminuria had the highest specificity (99%) and visceral obesity the highest sensitivity (93%). Seventy-eight per cent of patients (95% CI, 76-80) fulfilled the ATPIII criteria for metabolic syndrome, low HDL-cholesterol having the highest specificity (95%), elevated blood pressure having the highest sensitivity. According to both proposals, 1113 patients were positive; 183 were concordantly negative, indicative of a fairly good agreement (k statistics, 0.464). Subjects only positive for the WHO proposal were more frequently males, had a lower BMI and a higher arterial pressure. Only subjects identified by the ATPIII proposal had a significantly higher prevalence of previously detected coronary heart disease. Conclusions Minimum criteria for the metabolic syndrome are met in most patients with Type 2 diabetes. Correct identification of the syndrome is important for an integrated approach to reduce the high costs and the associated disabilities. The ATPIII proposal more clearly identifies the burden of coronary heart disease associated with the metabolic syndrome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据